Stonewall resurrecting the 'conversion therapy' bill

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/28/stonewall-will-fight-to-ban-all-lgbt-conversion-practices-says-new-chief

Welcome to the new boss, just the same as the old boss. Unrepentant and repeating all the same tropes.

And right on cue, here's the beeb to back up the narrative.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w1gl530vvo

Re gay/homosexual and another gender, a trans-identified woman I know calls herself a gay man. And many trans-identifying men call themselves lesbians.

The internal contradictions are ridiculous.

You can't choose to call yourself 'homosexual' when you are attracted to the opposite sex. It's so absurd.

But they’ve changed sex so they aren’t attracted to the opposite sex.

I know, I know. It’s illogical, but in their heads it’s totally logical. (Or alternatively, they know it’s illogical but it serves their purpose to pretend otherwise. I think both can be true.)

If they were calling themselves 'transsexual' then maybe that would have its own batshit internal logic.

But pretty much every trans person and several of the gay ones would only ever refer to themselves as queer. Which I do see the point of.

Gawd missed out 'that I know' there.

If we're talking about the young lesbians who are into yaoi porn, who describe themselves as gay men and only date other lesbians who think they're gay men, I'm not sure whether they'd give a sensible response to a survey.

That goes double for the straight women who are also into yaoi porn, who describe themselves as gay men and pop up on Reddit complaining that their boyfriend won't accept that they're in a "queer" relationship.

And this is where you get essentially straight people scolding homosexual people and telling them they are homophobic for rejecting the word choices and definitions someone chooses to use about themselves. Plenty of threads on FWR illustrating it. It's the 'if I want to eat steak and eggs while calling myself vegan who are you to police it?' argument. It tends to get very ugly very fast.

It's about liking the words, the feelings and the identity choices while having zero respect for the impact on those who actually needed their words to retain shared meaning rather than become something for others to play with.

This is the quicksand mess that potentially politicians intend to try and build legislation in it. They would be mad to go there, and it will end inevitably in a huge mess.

I'm sure that post made sense to you.

If you're going to have anti-discrimination law, that depends on there being stable and meaningful categories. Which means we recognise that 90% plus of the population is hetero, the rest is basically either homo or bi, and if there are people with weird fetishes, then as long as they aren't harming anyone and they keep their fetishes private we're ok. We can't build legal frameworks around infinite micro-identities that nobody can define and, according to queer theory, nobody should define.

But yeah, whenever I hear anyone describe themselves as "queer", I assume that they're straights with fetishes.

I don't think these kinds of groups are uncommon, there are examples in the Catholic Church, which are focused on living as a gay or lesbian person within a Catholic framework.

I can't quite picture the state telling people they are not allowed to do that, or pray about it, in whatever way they see fit. Or maybe I can picture it, but I don't see it as a positive thing.

It’s a good point and well articulated.
What parts didn’t you understand? I’m sure we can help.

As TheOtherRaven says, this is likely to get very messy, very fast, if we're talking about praying for people being forbidden.

Stonewall says therapy won't be forbidden by the new law, but how many therapists will risk treating someone if they may be prosecuted for asking questions?

I'm wondering if this is a going-through-the-motions farce to justify Stonewall's continued existence? Will any Bill be mauled by legislators, and eventually quietly sidelined 'for later', like the Assisted Dying Bill fiasco?

I can't work out if this Bill is a dangerous threat, or a tedious waste of everyone's time and money, when services are already straining to treat patients and police and the justice system are struggling to cope. Maybe both.

There's also the possibility of this bill being "payment" for services rendered. The major donor of clothes, spectacles, parties, free accommodation etc to the government was Lord Ali - a significant Stonewall ally.
When Starmer was looking so foolish after his inept comments about women and forgetting what sex his children were, I wondered who on earth was advising him? It was evident that it wasn't anyone with insight into how the public were viewing the march of trans ideology through society & the impact on children. When the freebie scandal emerged I wondered whether Ali was the source of Starmer's advice? And perhaps this nonsense bill is the reward for all that money invested in Labour?

It's pretty clear the one thing it's not is a Bill that's going to actually help address a problem.

The Bill is a continuation of Labour's desire to look like the reasonable one who can cater to both sides. Obviously it is a tool to keep LGBT Labour onside and donors etc.

At the same time they also really need to keep the Terfy parts of the party and Muslims/Catholics happy.

Which is why it is likely to be either a Frankenstein monster of legislation if it ever appears or more likely a ghostly apparition with no substance.

Ironically I think the process is way better for our side than the TAs. Remember Stonewall are desperate for continuing government funds, so they can't criticise them too much. This has led them to put themselves in a weak position. Say the bill forbids the fictional 10,000s of gay exorcisms being carried out. Labour can claim to have saved lots of gay people from a horror. The horror doesn't exist, but who cares. What can Stonewall say? Well we meant you to lock up the nasty women who say things? Not stop the very real wave of gay exorcism you awful people. Whatever the bill does Stonewall has to claim it as a win. Because they have to claim they have real power to keep the money train going. Not just from government, but from business academia etc. Notice how their criticisms of Cass are muted. They know they can't win so they avoid the conversation.

However the process is going to anger the many TA extremists because it isn't going to make misgendering a capital offence. So they will continue to attack Labour and Stonewall. It will be interesting to see what SNP, Lib Dems and Greens say. It will put them on the spot. Will they try to add the Terf execution amendment. Or do nothing. The SNP have already passed the ball, because they know the ball is actually a ticking bomb which can't be dealt with.

Meanwhile our side can call out any flaws in the legislation and lobby against it. The House of Lords can put in amendments. Votes will happen. People will go on the record. Because we are actually independent and not motivated by cash any discussion and debate makes us stronger also because the other side are very dumb.

I think the C of E would be over the moon if 1 in 10 people went to church on a regular basis.

You would have to assume an extraordinary overlap between people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people from religious backgrounds that believe in exorcising evil spirts.

However the process is going to anger the many TA extremists because it isn't going to make misgendering a capital offence.

Don't go giving the Greens any ideas, now.

Just updating to say that the tables Opinium published yesterday have been amended, as they mixed up some columns.

https://www.opinium.com/stonewall-press-tables/

'The tables on this page have been updated as of 1st of April. A previous version of these tables that was published online incorrectly had the labels for columns F and G the wrong way around. This is now corrected in the downloadable file.'

So, seems they muddled up 'another gender identity' with 'NET: transgender'.

Easy done.

I've read the thread but I am not convinced you have understood much (if you have bothered to read anything - I'm not convinced you aren't just on here to intentionally misrepresent the issue).

'I needed years of therapy over battle to change my sexuality' - BBC News

Here is someone testifying to conversion therapy far in excess of just praying, by someone who isn't a medical professional.

From the BBC report:

"Results from Stonewall's research suggest that 38% of trans and non-binary respondents had experienced physical assault in an attempt to alter their gender identity."

This seems suspiciously high (perhaps it's a self selecting group but that itself makes the percentage unrepresentative) - but physical assault is already illegal.

'many people in the LGBT community to have been exposed to so-called conversion therapy, with 31% of people responding to a recent survey from the charity Stonewall saying they have experienced it.'

31%?! Holy fuckin moly. That's unbelievable.

'A previous government survey in 2017 found around 2% of LGBT people had undergone conversion practices'

And

'31% of people responding to a recent survey from the charity Stonewall saying they have experienced it'

Rates of conversion therapy have increased from 2% to 31% (in LGBT people) in the past eight years?!

"He says he stopped the sessions after the elder started forcing him to make himself sick by tasting a bitter liquid whenever he had sexual thoughts or urges about other men."

In what situation would this be legal?

"His experience puts him among the 17% of respondents to Stonewall's survey who said they'd experienced prayer from others in an attempt to change their sexual orientation or gender identity."

Many religious people believe that homosexuality is a sin. The C of E still won't perform same sex marriages. Many Christians believe that non believers suffer eternal damnation and pray for their souls.

It's difficult to identify the gap between a practice that would be illegal anyway, and a belief that is protected in law.

You know how, at school, there was always one kid who was a compulsive liar?

And they might have got away with it if they'd bothered to make their stories halfway plausible?